Collins - Modern Physics and The Energy-Conservation Objection To Mind-Body Dualism

North American Philosophical Publications
Modern Physics and the Energy-Conservation Objection to Mind-Body Dualism

Author(s): Robin Collins
Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jan., 2008), pp. 31-42
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the North American Philosophical
Publications
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20464395
Accessed: 11-05-2018 12:26 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Illinois Press, North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly
This content downloaded from 161.53.54.11 on Fri, 11 May 2018 12:26:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY
Volume 45, Number 1, January 2008
MODERN PHYSICS AND THE

ENERGY-CONSERVATION OBJECTION
TO MIND-BODY DUALISM
Robin Collins
I. INTRODUCTION [a]ll forms of substance dualism inherit Des

cartes' problem of how to give a coherent
T he principle of energy conservation account of the causal relations between the
soul and the body, but recent versions have
(PEC) is often raised as a major, if not fatal,
an additional problem. It seems impossible to
objection to substance dualism, as can be seen
make substance dualism consistent with mod
from the following quotations from some of
em physics. Physics says that the amount of
the leading philosophers of mind:
matter/energy in the universe is constant, but
[N]o physical energy or mass is associated substance dualism seems to imply that there
with them [influences from immaterial mind is another kind of energy, mental energy or
to brain]. How, then, do they get to make a dif spiritual energy, that is not fixed by physics. So
ference to what happens in the brain cells they if substance dualism is true then it seems that
must affect, if the mind is to have any influence one of the most fundamental laws of physics,
over the body? A fundamental principle of the law of conservation, must be false. Some
physics is that any change in the trajectory of substance dualists have attempted to cope with
any physical entity is an acceleration requiring this problem by claiming that for each infu
the expenditure of energy, and where is this sion of spiritual energy, there is a diminution
energy to come from? It is this principle of the of physical energy, thus preserving a constant
conservation of energy that accounts for the amount of energy in the universe. Others have
physical impossibility of "perpetual motion said that the mind rearranges the distribution of
machines," and the same principle is appar energy in the universe without adding to it or
ently violated by dualism. This confrontation subtracting from it. ... There is something ad
between quite standard physics and dualism has hoc about these maneuvers, in the sense that the
been endlessly discussed since Descartes's own authors are convinced in advance of the truth of
day, and is widely regarded as the inescapable dualism and are trying to find some way, any
andfatalflaw with dualism.... Just as would way, that will make dualism consistent with
be expected, ingenious technical exemptions physics." (Searle 2004, p. 42)
based on sophisticated readings of the relevant
According to Owen Flanagan,
physics have been explored and expounded, but
without attracting many conversions. (Dennett If Descartes is right that a nonphysical mind can
1991, p. 35, italics mine) cause the body to move, for example, when we
decide to go to a concert, then physical energy
In a similar vein, John Searle claims that must increase in and around our body, since we
get up and go to the concert. In order, however,
31
32 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY
for physical energy to increase in any system, causes-such as certain sorts of property dual
it has to have been transferred from some other ism or agency views of libertarian free will.
physical system. But the mind, according to The paper will conclude that the EC objection
Descartes, is not a physical system and there
has little merit, primarily because it is based
fore it does not have any energy to transfer. The
on a faulty view of the scope of PEC in cur
mind cannot account for the fact that our body
rent physics.
ends up at the concert.... We could maintain
that the principle of the conservation of energy
II. THE EC OBJECTION
holds, but that every time a mind introduces new
energy into the world-thanks to some mysteri
PRECISELY STATED
ous capacity it has-an equal amount of energy None of the authors above ever provides a
departs from the physical universe-thanks precisely stated version of the EC objection.
to some perfectly orchestrated mysterious In attempting to formulate a precise version
capacity the universe has. Unfortunately, such of the objection, one will immediately notice
an assumption is totally unwarranted except that it is similar to the objection to interaction
as a way of saving Cartesian dualism, and,
istic dualism based on the so-called causal
therefore utterly begs the question." (Flanagan
closure principle. According to one version
1991, p. 21)
of this principle, "every physical effect has its
Finally, Jerry Fodor remarks that chance fully determined by physical events
[t]he chief drawback of dualism is its failure alone" (Lowe 2000, p. 574). It is difficult to
to account adequately for mental causation. see, however, how this and related versions of
... How can the nonphysical give rise to the the principle do not simply beg the question
physical without violating the laws of the against interactionistic dualism by assuming
conservation of mass, of energy and of momen what this form of dualism denies, a point
tum?" (Fodor 1994, p. 25) argued in detail by E. J. Lowe (2000).
The above quotations each focus on the Does the EC objection beg the question
violation of energy conservation as a key in the same way by assuming that all physi
problem confronting what could be called cal interactions must obey PEC? Initially, it
strongly interactionistic substance dualism might seem that it does. As C. J. Ducasse has
(or "interactionistic dualism" for short), a stated, conservation of energy would be an
version of substance dualism in which there obstacle to interactionistic dualism "only if it
is mental causation of bodily states that were known to be a universal fact" (Ducasse
is not overdetermined by physical causes. 1951, p. 241), something Ducasse claims
This paper will primarily attempt to address scientists do not know. The EC objection
this energy conservation (EC) objection by can be formulated in a non-question begging
carefully looking at the physics behind the way, however. One way of doing this is via
PEC, something that surprisingly has not the following inductive argument: (1) PEC
been done before and is much needed given applies to all known interactions that "involve
the pervasiveness of the EC objection in the physical things and processes"; (2) The prop
literature. Although this paper will only be erty P1 of "being an interaction that involves
concerned with the EC objection to interac physical things" is projectable (in Nelson
tionistic dualism, this objection is of more Goodman's sense), and thus can support
general interest since it can be raised against an inductive inference; (3) Therefore, since
most views in which the human person is the mind-body interaction involves physical
claimed to causally influence the brain in a things/processes, probably PEC holds for it.
way that is not overdetermined by physical
THE ENERGY-CONSERVATION OBJECTION TO MIND-BODY DUALISM / 33
One major problem confronting this the EC objection could respond that PEC is
argument is the claim that P1 is project a principle that has survived the revolutions
able. Certainly, there is some projectable of both quantum mechanics and relativity,
predicate in the neighborhood of P1, since and thus one can be fairly confident that it
the purported universal applicability of PEC applies to all interactions involving physical
to all known physical interactions would give systems. At the very least, they could argue,
one inductive reasons to believe that PEC assuming that PEC does not apply to all in
would apply to some newly postulated type teractions involving physical systems leads
of physical process, such as that involving to a less simple account of the world, hence
a new kind of physical field. The predicate providing some reason to reject interaction
P2, that of "being a physical interaction that istic dualism.2
involves only physical things," could ground The deepest flaw in the EC objection is
this latter inductive inference as well as P1, neither the lack of an argument for P1 being
however. But, a parallel argument from PEC projectable, nor the weakness of the induc
formulated using P2-i.e., one in which the tive inference if it is. Rather, it is that PEC
first premise (call it premise (1')) says that does not actually apply to all known physical
PEC applies to all interactions involving only interactions, as demonstrated in the section on
physical things-does not imply anything general relativity below. Further, in quantum
about whether PEC applies to the mind-body mechanics (see section V), there are law-like
interaction. Further, since the laws of phys correlations between events without energy
ics have only been verified for interactions or momentum exchange, thus providing a
between physical things and events, premise physical precedent for a mind-body dualist to
(1) takes into account the same body of assert that mental events are correlated with
known data as premise (1), and thus there is brain events in a law-like way without any
no reason to prefer premise (1) over premise exchange of energy or momentum. Before
(1') as a summary of the extant data. Thus, considering general relativity or quantum
in order for the above inductive argument to mechanics, the way in which energy is used
present a problem for interactionistic dualism, in modem physics must be considered along
the advocate of the EC objection would need with what it means to say that energy is
to provide reasons for assuming the project conserved.
ability of P1 in addition to the projectability
of P2, something they have not done.' III. DEFINING ENERGY AND PEC
Even if advocates of the EC objection had As Marc Lange discusses in detail in his
an argument that P1 is projectable, the dualist excellent book on the philosophy of phys
could argue that the corresponding induc ics, the total energy of a material body is not
tive argument is fairly weak, for arguably an intrinsic property of the body since it is
the history of physics testifies that the laws dependent on the frame of reference from
of physics tend to be applicable only over a which the energy is measured (Lange 2002,
limited domain-e.g., Newton's laws were pp. 209-210). In classical mechanics, for
found to be applicable only for medium-sized instance, the total energy is equal to the sum
objects traveling at small velocities relative to of the internal energy of a body and its kinetic
the speed of light. A dualist could therefore energy, mV2, the latter quantity clearly being
argue that the history of physics should lead frame dependent since the velocity v is frame
one to expect that PEC would be violated in dependent. For example, the total kinetic
such a radically different context as the mind energy of a ball at rest relative to a moving
brain interaction. Of course, the advocate of train car will be zero when measured by an
observer standing still in the train, but will momentum (the stress-energy tensor or
be non-zero when measured by an observer energy-momentum 4-vector) as described
standing still on the earth. from a single frame of reference. All claims
The same frame-dependence problem also regarding energy made below, however,
arises for the notion of energy in Einstein's can be translated into frame-independent
special theory of relativity: the total energy claims simply by substituting the term
of a particle is dependent on the frame of "stress-energy" for the word "energy" in the
reference in which it is measured, even corresponding sentences below. Finally, it
when the rest mass of a particle is treated as should be noted that since the momentum of
a form of energy via the relation E = mc2. a particle in each spatial direction is simply
Another quantity, the energy-momentum 4 a corresponding component of the energy
vector, however, is independent of the frame momentum 4-vector, almost everything said
of reference-that is, technically speaking, below about the conservation of energy also
it is Lorenz invariant, though of course its applies, with minor modifications, to the
representation in terms of components is de objection to dualism based on the conserva
pendent on the coordinate system and hence tion of momentum (or mass, because of the
frame of reference that is chosen.3 In general interconvertability of mass and energy).
relativity, the energy-momentum 4-vector is Given the way energy is defined in mod
generalized to the case of a continuous flow ern physics, how should PEC be defined?
of matter, becoming the stress-energy tensor As Robert Larmer notes, in discussions of
T. This is a sixteen-component mathematical PEC and dualism, PEC is defined as the
quantity, the first component (TOO) of which principle that "energy can neither be created
gives the energy density with respect to a nor destroyed," or more precisely as the claim
given frame of reference. So, the combina that "in a causally isolated system the total
tion of energy and momentum as expressed amount of energy must remain constant"
by the energy-momentum 4-vector or the (Larmer 1986, p. 281). Call this latter state
stress-energy tensor can be considered an ment the causally closed system version of
intrinsic property of the system since they PEC, or CPEC for short. CPEC does not
are frame invariant quantities. Further, the adequately represent how PEC is actually
total energy-momentum (or stress-energy) is used in practice, however. In practice, the
conserved, at least when the effects of grav most general statement of PEC is what could
ity can be neglected (see section IV below). be called the boundary version of PEC, or
Conservation of stress-energy is the correct BPEC for short. According to BPEC, the rate
frame-invariant conservation law in physics. of change of total energy (or more accurately,
When one only considers a single frame of stress-energy) in a closed region of space is
reference, however, this conservation law equal to the total rate of energy (or more ac
implies energy conservation, even though curately, stress-energy) flowing through the
the total energy should not be considered an spatial boundary of the region;4 BPEC makes
intrinsic quantity of a system since it is frame no reference to energy as a quantity that can
dependent. not be created or destroyed, nor to the idea of
Even though the total energy is not an a causally isolated system.
intrinsic property of a physical system, for Since if a system is causally isolated,
convenience the term "energy" will often clearly no energy will be going through its
be used below, with the understanding that boundary, BPEC entails CPEC for all those
energy is simply a component of a quantity cases in which energy flow through a bound
expressing the combination of energy and ary can be defined, and in which the region
of space over which CPEC applies is finite or out of the system, one is simply back to
(otherwise, one must consider boundary con stating a consequence of BPEC: the energy
ditions at infinity). CPEC, however, does not in a spatially closed system is approximately
entail BPEC unless an additional assumption constant when approximately zero energy is
is made that itself presupposes BPEC, which flowing into or out of the system. Since no
effectively means that BPEC cannot be de alternative account of "approximately caus
rived from CPEC. ally isolated" has ever been suggested, CPEC
To see this, consider a causally isolated is not a fundamental principle of physics in its
system occupying a region S that is divided own right but is dependent on BPEC.
into two arbitrary non-overlapping regions, Is BPEC sufficient to cover all cases in
A and B. Assuming that the total energy can which one might want to speak of conserva
be defined for any arbitrary region and that tion of energy? This is a controversial ques
the total energy of S is the sum of the energy tion since in one very special case in general
of each region, it follows from CPEC that relativity, physicists want to speak of the total
if energy is lost in one region, A, it must be energy of a system even though no concept
compensated for by an energy gain in its of energy flow can be meaningfully defined.
complement, B. But this leaves open how the Thus, PEC actually might involve two prin
energy got from A to B-e.g., it could have ciples, BPEC and some other special version
just instantaneously moved from A to B. To that only applies to certain special systems.
obtain BPEC, one must add the assumption This issue will be discussed more below in
that energy is transported by a contiguous the section on energy conservation in general
flow, which requires some definition of en relativity.
ergy flow. Even this is not enough, however, Given that BPEC is a fundamental prin
since one must somehow still equate the ciple, certain typical dualist responses to the
energy flow into or out of a region with the EC objection either fail or must be revised.
total change in energy in the region-that is, For instance, Robert Larmer (1986), in his
one must claim that the total flow through the fairly comprehensive review and critique of
boundary gives the rate of change of energy previous responses to the EC objection, advo
in a region. This latter assumption, however, cates a response based on CPEC. According
simply restates BPEC. So, BPEC cannot be to Larmer, the human body is not a causally
derived from CPEC and therefore must be closed system since it is influenced by an im
taken as fundamental in its own right. material mind (along with its environment).
Further, apart from BPEC, CPEC is neither Thus, he argues, on its own terms, PEC does
verifiable nor unverifiable since no physical not apply (Larmer 1986, pp. 282-283).5
system (apart from the universe as a whole) Clearly this response fails for the case of the
is causally isolated. To avoid CPEC being EC objection based on BPEC since BPEC
trivial (since it does not strictly apply to any does not make reference to causally closed
physical system), one could say that energy is systems.
approximately conserved for systems that are Another common dualist response is to
approximately causally isolated. The problem claim that the world could be arranged in just
here is that if CPEC is to be considered a the right way so that the energy gain in one
fundamental physical law in its own right, region, such as the brain, could be compen
a precise (or at least heuristically useful) sated for by an equal energy loss somewhere
account of what "approximately causally else, and hence total energy would remain
isolated" means must be given. If all one constant:
means is that very little energy is flowing into
Conservation of energy dictates only that the PEC does not apply in GR except in the very
energy in a closed physical system is constant, special circumstance mentioned below. This
not also how that energy is distributed within implies that although gravitational fields and
the system. Since mental events could effect waves clearly causally influence material ob
bodily changes by altering that distribution
jects, their influence cannot be understood in
of energy, the conservation principle does not
terms of movement of energy through space.
preclude minds' having bodily effects. (Rosen
As physicist Robert Wald notes,
thal, p. 136)
In general relativity there exists no meaningful
One problem with this response is that it
local expression for gravitational stress-energy
invokes CPEC instead of BPEC, at least and thus there is no meaningful local energy
if "distribution" is understood as spatial conservation law which leads to a statement of
distribution. Rather, in light of BPEC, the energy conservation. (Wald 1984, p. 70, n. 6)
response would need to be revised to state
The reason that local energy cannot be defined
that the mind influences the distribution of
for gravitational fields is that no tensor can be
energy in a system by influencing either the
defined in GR to represent the gravitational
spatial flow of energy within a system or
energy in a region of space-time. All physical
the flow of energy between one form (e.g.,
quantities in GR are represented by quantities
chemical potential energy) and other forms
that are invariant with respect to any frame
(e.g., electrochemical impulses along nerve
of reference. This is called the condition of
cells). Perhaps the most physically plausible
general covariance, and it is central to the
way this could happen is by the mind causing
formulation of GR. Since tensors are defined
some quantum mechanical transition's prob
in such a way as to be invariant with respect to
ability (or perhaps increasing or decreasing
a change of coordinates (though their expres
the transition's probability), such as causing
sion in terms of components is not), express
the transition of an atom from an excited state
ing a quantity in tensoral form guarantees
to its ground state to occur at a particular
its invariance. The problem for gravitational
time. Arguably, as Jerome Schaeffer (1968,
energy (and gravitational momentum) is that
pp. 66-67) notes, causing such a transition
no physically plausible tensor, nor any other
would not violate any law of nature because
frame invariant quantity, can be found for the
of the non-deterministic nature of quantum
stress-energy of a gravitational field. Further,
mechanics. Among others, Jeffrey Schwartz,
Wald notes, given the fundamental physical
Henry Stapp, and Mario Beauregard (2003)
principles behind GR, "it seems highly un
have attempted to develop models of mind/
likely that a generally applicable prescription
brain interaction along these lines.
exists for obtaining a physically meaningful
The next two sections will explore other,
local expression for gravitational energy"
and arguably more powerful, responses that
(Wald 1984, p. 286). The only way of obtain
interactionistic dualists could give to the EC
ing a local expression for gravitational energy
objection.
would be to add additional structure to space
IV. THE EC OBJECTION AND time (Wald 1984, p. 286). As Wald points out,
GENERAL RELATIVITY however, "such additional structure would be
completely counter to the spirit of general
General relativity (GR) presents a major
relativity, which views the spacetime metric
problem for the EC objection. The problem
as fully describing all aspects of spacetime
is that no local concept of stress-energy (and
structure and the gravitational field" (Wald
hence energy-momentum) can be defined for
1984, p. 286).
the gravitational field in GR. Consequently,
A meaningful expression for the gravi acknowledging a change in non-gravitational

tational stress-energy-and hence the total energy within a closed region without being
energy-of an isolated region of space-time able to attribute this change to a transfer of en
can be obtained, however, in the highly spe ergy from another source or region of space.
cial case in which the region of space-time This leads Hoefer to suggest that for the case
is asymptotically flat (that is, flat at spatial of gravity wave detectors, "energy gain in a
infinity for suitably defined hypersurfaces gravity wave detector could be thought of
of constant time). An example would be a as genuine gain, without having to say that
star surrounded by empty space in a universe the energy existed somewhere beforehand"
with a flat space-time. No such systems ex (Hoefer 2000, p. 196).
ist within our universe (although many star This non-conservation of energy in GR is
systems can be approximately described in exploited by inflationary cosmology, in which
this way for predictive purposes). Further, as the inflaton field acts as a "reservoir of un
philosopher Carl Hoefer points out (Hoefer limited energy, which can supply as much as
2000, p. 194), since our universe is not as is required to inflate a given region to any re
ymptotically flat, strictly speaking energy is quired size at constant energy density" (Pea
not even conserved for our universe taken as cock, 1999, p. 26). In inflationary cosmology,
a whole.6 this allows for the entire mass-energy of the
Consequently, although in one sense PEC is universe to come out of a minuscule region
not violated in GR-since this would require of pre-space (e.g., less than 10-30 centimeters
that the total energy be well defined-PEC in diameter) with a minuscule total energy.
typically does not apply. Consequently, Some popular treatments-such as that of
in systems interacting with a gravitational Alan Guth (1997, pp. 9-12, 170-174)-try
wave, no conserved quantity that has the right to claim that the total energy of the universe
characteristics can be defined. Gravitational remains constant in the process since the
fields, however, clearly have real physical ef gravitational field produced by the matter
fects on matter, even though from within the in the universe contributes a negative total
framework of GR these effects do not obey energy, but this could not be correct since
PEC. One specific consequence of this is that the total energy of the universe is undefined
in the presence of a gravitational wave the in GR. Rather, as other textbooks recognize
total non-gravitational energy in an enclosed (e.g., see Borner 1988, p. 298), inflationary
region of space could decrease or increase, cosmology exploits the non-conservation of
without any net physically definable energy energy in GR.7
flowing across the boundary of the region. Given the non-conservation of energy in
For instance, since gravitational waves exert GR, what should one think of PEC? Should
tidal forces on matter, the waves will cause an one expect that a future successor to GR will
increase in the energy content of matter. Yet re-establish the universality of PEC? The an
one cannot calculate the gravitational energy swer is probably no. As Hoefer points out, the
transferred from gravitational waves to some tenure of PEC as a well-established idea "was
object since this would require that the energy arguably fairly short (limited to part of the
of the waves be defined. At best, in the highly nineteenth and early twentieth centuries), and
special case mentioned above, one could at all times fraught with difficulties" (Hoefer
estimate the amount of energy flowing out 2000, p. 188). Further, Hoefer notes, Newto
of a region of space that was asymptotically nian gravitational theory had difficulties with
flat-such as the region surrounding a lone PEC and Einstein was explicitly aware of the
star. One is therefore often simply left with problems with PEC as early as 1916 (Hoefer
2000, pp. 189-191). This contrasts sharply on another without any exchange of energy
with the statements of most advocates of the occurring. In classical physics, this occurs
EC objection who claim that PEC is one of anytime an entity acts on another entity with
the most, if not the most, well-established a force that is perpendicular to the second
principles in physics, as in the quotations at entity's direction of motion. The reason is that
the beginning of this paper. Yet, despite the the work, W, performed on a system-that is,
evidence to the contrary, even in most texts on the energy transferred to it-is equal to the
GR there is "the universal, almost desperate force times the distance moved in the direc
desire to make it seem as though there is such tion of the force. Consequently, if the force
a principle [PEC] at the heart of the theory [of is perpendicular to the direction of motion of
general relativity]" (Hoefer 2000, p. 195). the object, it will influence the motion of the
The non-conservation of energy in GR object according to Newton's law (F = ma),
opens up another response a dualist could without any work being performed and hence
give to the EC objection. A dualist could without any energy being transferred. There
argue that, like the gravitational field, the no are many examples of this within physics. An
tion of energy simply cannot be defined for example that C. D. Broad gives in response
the mind, and hence one cannot even apply to the EC objection, and which is repeated by
PEC to the mind/body interaction. The mind, Campbell (Broad 1925, chap. 3; Campbell
like the gravitational field, could cause a real 1984, pp. 52-53), is that of a bob at the end
change in the energy of the brain without PEC of a pendulum: the string causally influences
applying to the interaction. Of course, this the motion of the bob, yet imparts no energy
leaves open the possibility of a new physi to it since the force the string exerts is always
cal theory being developed that replaces the perpendicular to the direction of motion. As
basic framework GR or of someone finding long as a "mental force" acting on a particle
an ingenious definition of energy that fits in the brain is perpendicular to the direction
within the framework of GR. All one can say of motion of the particle, therefore, it would
for sure is that, within current physics, not causally influence the motion of the particle
all systems can be said to obey PEC.8 At the without any exchange of energy occurring.
very least, this puts the burden of proof on Such forces, however, do impart momentum
the person offering the EC objection to state to the objects under consideration because of
why, given that in the best physical theories Newton's Second Law, F = ma. This type of
PEC does not apply to all physical interac response to the EC objection, therefore, fails
tions, one should think that it applies to the when the full conservation law of energy and
mind/brain interaction. momentum is considered. The only way to
conserve both energy and momentum is to
V. INTERACTION WITHOUT have an equal force in the opposite direction
ENERGY EXCHANGE IN PHYSICS act on another particle, thus causing the two
Underlying the EC objection is the idea changes in momentum to cancel. Even this
that causal interaction requires an exchange scenario, however, would violate the BPEC
of energy. Even apart from the considerations version of energy-momentum conservation
based on general relativity in the last section, as applied to any region that only contained
this idea is deeply problematic within contem one of the particles.
porary physics. To begin, consider classical Quantum mechanics, however, does pro
physics. Theoretically, within classical phys vide a good case of interaction (or at least cor
ics, one system or entity can have an effect relation) without either energy or momentum
exchange.In quantum mechanics, there are
definitely correlations-and in many realist ing causal interaction become much more
interpretations, causal interactions-without plausible.
energy exchange. Consider, for example, the Note that the above response to the EC ob
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations jection based on the EPR correlations is not
in which two space-like separated sequences the same as the common dualist response to
of events - sequence A and sequence B-are the EC objection that postulates that the mind
correlated in law-like ways that cannot, as somehow influences the collapse of the quan
John Bell showed, be explained in terms of tum state vector (see, for example, Campbell
a non-instantaneous common cause. Further, 1984, p. 54; and Schwartz, Stapp, and Beau
since quantum mechanics predicts that EPR regard 2003). Although this is a possible way
correlations can occur between sequences of that the mind could influence the body that
events separated by any arbitrary distance, is compatible with PEC, the above response
these correlations cannot be explained by the does not commit one to this particular account
events in sequence A's causing the events in of mind-body interaction.9 Rather, the above
sequence B or vice versa, unless the causes response shows that positing an interaction
are considered to travel faster than the speed (or at least a correlation) between the mind
of light. Special relativity, however, requires and brain that does not involve an energy
that any energy transfer occur at less than the exchange, or any other mediating field, has
speed of light (in all frames of reference), thus precedent in current physics, thus severely
ruling out any causal interaction that requires weakening the EC objection. Further, these
an energy transfer as an explanation for these EPR correlations are not merely some minor
correlations. Further, quantum mechanics "technical exemption" within physics, but
predicts that the correlations occur without pervasive throughout the microscopic world,
any energy transfer. The EPR correlations playing a fundamental role in the operation of
have thus demonstrated that law-like correla nature if a non-instrumentalist interpretation
tions do not require an exchange of energy of quantum mechanics is correct. Finally,
or momentum. these quantum correlations cast severe doubt
There have been two main responses to even on the suggestion that causation requires
these correlations in the literature: (i) the an intermediate carrier (e.g., Hoefer 2000,
causal realist response, according to which p. 196), such as gravitational waves in the
these correlations are grounded in some case of general relativity, whether or not
instantaneous causal connection between that carrier involves a transference of energy
events in A and events in B or in a non-lo and momentum. Since quantum mechanics
cal and thus instantaneously acting common predicts that, at least for certain experimen
cause; and (ii) the causal anti-realist response, tal arrangements, the EPR correlations are
according to which these correlations are not instantaneous in some frame of reference,
grounded in any further causal facts. If the there does not seem to be any carrier. Thus
causal realist response is adopted, the bur it follows that causal interactions (or at least
den is on the advocate of the EC objection law-like correlations) do not require an inter
to state why she thinks that the mind-brain mediate carrier. Further, since by hypothesis
interaction should require an exchange of there is no spatial distance between the im
energy when EPR interactions do not. If the material mind and the brain, there is no need
causal anti-realist interpretation is adopted, for such a carrier.
then versions of dualism in which there are
law-like connections between mental events
and physical events without any correspond
VI. SUMMARY any intermediate carrier. Of course, the more
The EC objection against interactionistic general interaction problem for interaction

dualism fails when one considers the fact that
istic dualism still remains, although this is
energy conservation is not a universally ap beyond the scope of this paper to address.
plicable principle in physics and that quantum What this paper has shown is that from the
mechanics sets a precedent for interaction perspective of the role of PEC in modern
(or at least law-like correlation) without any
physics, the pervasive EC objection to dual
ism has no merit.
sort of energy-momentum exchange, or even
Messiah College
NOTES
I would like to thank the John Templeton Foundation for support of this work as part of a group grant
"The Soul Hypothesis: Developing Non-Supervenience Views of the Mental," several members of the
group (Stewart Goetz, Charles Taliaferro, William Hasker, and Dean Zimmerman) for reading over an
earlier draft, and Richard Swinburne, Marc Lange, William Lane Craig, and an anonymous referee for
providing helpful comments.
1. Of course, one could claim, as Dennett does, that "any thing that can move a physical thing is a
physical thing" (Dennett 1991, pp. 35-36). Then one could make a legitimate inductive argument based
on the assumed projectability of P2 to the conclusion that PEC applies to the mind-body interaction.
This move, however, simply pushes the issue back to whether this definition of the property of being
physical, and hence property P2 under this definition, is relevantly projectable.
2. Sometimes the purported universal applicability of PEC to all known domains is supported by
metaphysical reasons. Indeed, historically, metaphysical motivations?particularly those based on the
idea of "conservation of natural forces"?played a major role in motivating the PEC in the nineteenth
century (see Harmon 1982, pp. 33-35, 58-64). Further, more recently, several authors have suggested
an account of causation in terms of energy flow (e.g., Quine 1973, pp. 4-8; Hart 1988, p. 62; and Fair
1979), thus suggesting that PEC would apply to all interactions since they all involve an exchange of
energy.
3. The energy-momentum 4-vector is a quantity whose first term is the total relativistic energy of
the particle divided by the speed of light and its second through fourth terms are the components of
momentum in each of the three spatial directions. The rest mass of a particle?the mass of a particle in
its rest frame?is also obviously frame independent, and thus qualifies as an intrinsic property of the
particle. This quantity is defined as the length of the energy-momentum 4-vector of the particle divided
by the velocity of light.
4. In flat space-time?that is, space-time in which no gravitational fields are present?the BPEC fol
lows by Gauss's theorem from the equation stating that the divergence of the stress-energy tensor for a
system must equal zero: V?T = 0, where V represents the four-divergence and T the stress-energy tensor.
Because the BPEC follows from this equation in flat space-time, in texts on general relativity this equa
tion is typically presented as the way of summarizing the law of energy and momentum conservation
in non-quantum physics. (See, for example, Carroll 2004 [pp. 35-36, eqs. 1.115 and 1.120] and Wald
1984 [pp. 62-63, eqs. 4.2.11 and 4.2.18].) In the curved space-time of general relativity, however, there
is no way of deriving the BPEC and hence the only expression left for stress-energy conservation of
non-gravitational fields is the above divergence equation.
5. Other defenders of dualism, such as J. P. Moreland and Scott Rea, also present this type of response
(Moreland and Rea 2000, p. 108).
6. Insofar as they discuss the issue, general relativity texts agree that there is no adequate definition of
local energy in GR: for example, Wald (1984, p. 70, n. 6, pp. 286-287), Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler
(1973, pp. 457-470), and Penrose (1989, p. 220; 2004, p. 467). Penrose, however, has attempted to retain
some global conception of the conservation of energy by claiming that GR shows that gravitational
energy is non-local. Even this move, however, would require that the total energy of the universe is
well-defined, which it is not (Penrose 1989, pp. 220-221). Further, if Penrose is right, the total mass
energy of the brain is not entirely confined to any local region, but at least in part involves the entire
universe. Such a non-local conception of the mass-energy of the brain, however, makes it difficult even
to formulate the EC objection, thus undermining almost all of its purported force.
To practically deal with this problem of the lack of any definition of local energy in GR, in practice
physicists often define a pseudo-tensor that they identify with the stress-energy of the gravitational
field for purposes of doing calculations. For example, such a pseudo-tensor can be defined for the weak
field limit of general relativity and the predictions based on this conform to experiment for at least one
binary star system. (See, for example, Carroll 2004, p. 315; and Penrose 2004, pp. 467-468.) Such
pseudo-tensors, however, cannot be treated as providing the real stress-energy of a system since they
are not frame invariant. The pseudo-tensors typically used, for instance, imply that in some frames of
reference, flat space-time has gravitational energy, even though by definition flat space-time contains
no gravitational fields!
7. This non-conservation of total energy is also invoked to resolve other puzzles in cosmology. For
example, the radiation energy in a closed universe decreases as the universe expands since each photon
is redshifted (and hence loses energy). As P. J. E. Peebles states, "the resolution of this apparent paradox
is that... there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity theory" (Peebles
1993, p. 139).
8. It should be noted that since energy and momentum are united in relativity, if no adequate stress
energy tensor can be found for the gravitational field, then the momentum of a gravitational field or
wave cannot be defined. (See Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler 1973, pp. 463^1-69.) This means that there
cannot be an applicable principle of momentum conservation in general relativity, although this is often
not discussed.
9. One problem that this account faces is explaining how these collapses at the microscopic level are
amplified so that they have macroscopic consequences in the brain; another problem is that it assumes
a collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics.
REFERENCES
Borner, G. 1988. The Early Universe: Facts or Fiction? (New York: Springer-Verlag).
Broad, C. D. 1925. The Mind and its Place in Nature (London : Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.).
Campbell, Keith. 1984. Body and Mind, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame
Press).
Carroll, Sean. 2004. Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity (San Francisco:
Addison-Wesley ).
Dennett, Daniel. 1991. Consciousness Explained (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company).
Ducasse, C. J. 1951. Nature, Mind, and Death (La Salle, 111.: Open Court).
Fair, David. 1979. "Causation and the Flow of Energy," Erkenntnis, vol. 14 (1979), pp. 219-250.
Flanagan, Owen. 1991. The Science of the Mind, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).
Fodor, Jerry. 1994. "The Mind-Body Problem," in The Mind-Body Problem, ed. R. Warner and T.
Szubka (Oxford: Blackwell).
Guth, Alan. 1997. The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins (New
York: Helix Books).
Harmon, P. M. 1982. Energy, Force, and Matter: The Conceptual Development of Nineteenth-Century
Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)
Hart, W. D. 1988. Engines of the Soul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Hoefer, Carl. 2000. "Energy Conservation in GTR," Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern
Physics, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 187-199.
Lange, Marc. 2002. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics: Locality, Fields, Energy, and Mass
(Oxford: Blackwell).
Larmer, R. 1986. "Mind-Body Interactionism and the Conservation of Energy," International Philo
sophical Quarterly, vol. 26, pp. 277-285.
Lowe, E. J. 2000. "Causal Closure Principles and Emergentism," Philosophy, vol. 75, no. 294 (Octo
ber), pp. 571-585.
Misner, C, K. Thorne, and J. Wheeler. 1973. Gravitation (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Com
pany).
Moreland, J. P., and Scott Rea. 2000. Body and Soul (Downers Grove, 111.: Intervarsity Press).
Peacock, John. 1999. Cosmol?gica! Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Peebles, P. J. E. 1993. Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press).
Penrose, Roger. 1989. The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of
Physics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
_. 2004. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf).
Rosenthal, David. 1998. "Dualism," The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3, ed. Edward
Craig (New York: Routledge).
Quine, W. V. 1973. The Roots of Reference (La Salle, 111.: Open Court).
Schaffer, Jerome. 1968. Philosophy of Mind (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall).
Schwartz, Jeffrey, Henry Stapp, and Mario Beauregard. 2003. "Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and
Psychology: A Neurophysical Model of Mind/Brain Interaction," http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/
PTB6.pdf, accessed February 15, 2007.
Searle, John. 2004. Mind: A Brief Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Wald, Robert. 1984. General Relativity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Collins - Modern Physics and The Energy-Conservation Objection To Mind-Body Dualism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collins - Modern Physics and The Energy-Conservation Objection To Mind-Body Dualism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

North American Philosophical Publications

Modern Physics and the Energy-Conservation Objection to Mind-Body Dualism

University of Illinois Press, North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating

MODERN PHYSICS AND THE

I. INTRODUCTION [a]ll forms of substance dualism inherit Des

A meaningful expression for the gravi acknowledging a change in non-gravitational

VI. SUMMARY any intermediate carrier. Of course, the more

The EC objection against interactionistic general interaction problem for interaction

You might also like